I am seeing a large number of people here promoting a pox on both houses and attacks on the leadership of the Democratic Party. If you slam the leaders of the Democratic Party, leaders who are unlikely to lose their positions prior to the midterms in November, then most people would wonder why you would vote D. If you think the leadership is terrible, then presumably you think that the party is terrible since the party picked these people to be leaders. I am reading that young people are, according to anecdotes, upset at the elderly leadership of the party. Of course, sometimes a person can come into an organization and immediately because of their talent and charisma and other factors be supported for leadership positions by those who have been toiling in the fields in the hot sun for decades. Usually, however, you learn more about a political party and its virtues and values and how it operates through experience and with more experience, you gain more expertise.
Attacking the Democratic Party while claiming you want to support pro-choice policy doesn’t seem likely to work. Again, we are told that young people are frustrated with the elderly leadership in a diary that is, in theory, upset at the terrible decision by SCOTUS and which wants to undo the damage done or minimize it. Based upon this frustration from these young people, we are told we must remove the elderly members of the leadership and that in this way a woman’s right to choose would again become the law of the land. The ones who are least likely to vote are going to singlehandedly defeat republicans by voting third party? If they are angry at the elderly leaders of the party and we are going to agree that the leaders of our party are terrible, then it would seem likely that these frustrated or angry younger voters would vote third party. There is only one political party that can defeat the Republican Party and undo or limit the damage done by SCOTUS. A pox on both houses won’t encourage voters to vote for the Democratic Party and attacking the leadership of the Democratic Party is going to be viewed by most voters as an indication that voters should not vote for the Democratic Party. If you think the leadership of the Democratic Party is awful, then why would you vote for that party? The leaders aren’t going to change prior to the midterms. It’s simply not going to happen. One political party has supported and does support a woman’s right to choose. Is singing God Bless America a way to make forced birtherism the law of the land? While supporting Cuellar over Cisneros was a mistake in my view, will it have a practical effect upon policy in this matter? I will address this more in the next paragraph. Is it the same as a vote or a nomination to a federal court? Even Joe Manchin opposed the ruling of SCOTUS.
Out of all the democrats in Congress, both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, only one is anti-choice. I promoted Cisneros over Cuellar in numerous diaries I wrote about that election. It is my view that the promotion of Cuellar by the leaders was a mistake. But is it likely to determine whether or not the damage done by SCOTUS is undone or minimized? Will it have any practical effect at all? The answer is almost certainly no. The leaders probably had three reasons for supporting Cuellar over Cisneros in that primary. I disagree with all of them. The first was probably because they felt that the incumbent was more likely to win the seat than the challenger. I disagree and I specified why in my diaries. Second, they felt that Cuellar was likely to win the primary and if he did win, they would have an opponent in a key position for appropriation and budget manners. They didn’t want that. Ironically, since Cisneros only lost by a little over 200 votes, they likely provided the margin for Cuellar’s victory. If he decided to create problems, then they could address that. House leadership likely also wanted a vote for them to retain their position. Speaker Pelosi has shown an ability to get good legislation passed. The problem for most legislation is in the US Senate.
Neither singing nor supporting Cuellar are likely to make it more difficult to undo the damage done by SCOTUS in Dobbs. I don’t understand the singing and it does seem out of tune with what SCOTUS just did. However, will it have any practical effect upon the issue? It won’t. Every democrat but one in Congress is pro-choice. All republicans in Congress save a few are forced birthers. This matter has been decided by SCOTUS and the justices appointed to the Supreme Court by presidents who are members of the Democratic Party all support upholding Roe and a woman’s right to choose. Although Roberts would not have completely eviscerated Roe, he would have helped to chip away at it. Five justices were appointed by republican presidents who lost the popular vote at least once. Five justices voted to essentially eradicate Roe and the sixth justice appointed by a republican would have chipped away at it as I mentioned above. We seem to be stuck in terms of addressing this via the Supreme Court unless we are able to expand the Court to undo or minimize the damage done in Dobbs.
This would mean that we have to make a woman’s right to choose the law of the nation via codifying Roe in legislation. This can pass the US House of Representatives as it is presently constituted. We need to net at least two more US senators in order to be able to pass legislation codifying Roe in the US Senate. Presumably with those two new democrats in the US Senate, we will have the votes to carve out an exception for pro-choice legislation and possibly (hopefully) voting rights legislation. If we can get past the filibuster, then we should have more than 50 votes for legislation that codifies Roe.
This means that despite the horrific damage done by SCOTUS, we have a reasonably good chance at establishing choice as the law across the nation. We simply need to get out our vote in the midterms. Throwing the Democratic Party and its leadership under the bus because we are pro-choice and we are angry because of a song and endorsements of one anti-choice democrat, the last one in Congress, is likely to hinder any attempt at making a woman’s right to choose the law of the land. It is likely to result in fewer voters who lean left showing up and voting for democrats. The younger the registered voter, the less likely, in general, they are to vote. They may be disappointed in the choice for nominee. However, we don’t let any individual or even any one cohort of democrats determine unilaterally who serves as nominee. The benefit of having a large and diverse collection of voters determine our nominee is that we are, in my view, more likely to get the best choice. Another candidate won’t have the support of the party that the winner has. An undemocratic manner of choosing the nominee is likely to alienate many or most voters. Now, if we were to have one demographic group choose the nominee, African American women have earned that right. They are the base. When African American women vote democrats win elections. They have proven their commitment to our party. The last cohort that one should have manage the party are the ones who are least likely to vote. “If we choose the candidate whom we think they most like, then they will show up in elections more.” This is putting the cart before the horse. Put in the work and vote like an African American woman. They have the opportunity to get their preferred candidate to be the nominee by voting in large enough numbers. You don’t get to say that the parties are both terrible and equivalent and not support the party and then immediately get to lead. No successful organization in the world runs like that.
Young people have the lowest turnout, though as the individual ages, turnout increases to a peak at the age of 50 and then falls again. Ever since 18-year-olds were given the right to vote in 1972, youth have been under represented at the polls as of 2003.
As with past elections, a higher share of women (68.4%) than men (65.0%) turned out to vote. Voter turnout also increased as age, educational attainment and income increased. Voter turnout was highest among those ages 65 to 74 at 76.0%, while the percentage was lowest among those ages 18 to 24 at 51.4%. Overall, voter turnout increased as age increased, with the exception of 75-plus which had a turnout rate that was below 65-74 year-olds and not significantly different than the turnout for 55 to 64 year-olds. High school graduate turnout was 55.5%, while turnout for those with a bachelor’s degree was 77.9%. Overall, voter turnout increased as income increased, with the exception of those in the income ranges $10,000-$14,999 and $15,000-$19,999, which had turnouts that were not significantly different. For people whose income was $100,000-$149,999, turnout was 81.0%, while for people whose income was $30,000-$39,999, turnout was 63.6%.
As Speaker, Pelosi spearheaded passage of the historic Affordable Care Act in the House and led the Congress in passing strong Wall Street reforms. A powerful voice for women’s rights, she was instrumental in passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to restore the ability of women and all workers to fight pay discrimination. Her legislative accomplishments also include the passage of historic investments in college aid, clean energy and innovation, and initiatives to help small businesses and veterans. Under Pelosi’s leadership, the 111th Congress was heralded as “one of the most productive Congresses in history” by Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein.
Nancy Pelosi’s List Of Accomplishments As Speaker Proves She’s The Champion We Still Need
The Affordable Care Act: Better known as Obamacare with the public option (the option was eventually taken out for the Republican compromise of the Heritage Foundation mandate, yeah the one they say they hate).
Dodd-Frank: This Wall Street reform was passed as a response to the recession of 2008 with hope that a financial crisis like that will never happen again and in hopes that banks will never become too big to fail.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay: Sought to make sure women receive equal pay for equal work.
Economic Stimulus Act of 2008: Passed to lessen the blow of a recession and boost the economy away from a financial freefall. “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 put $787 billion into the economy in hope of blunting the effect of the recession.”
The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Which allowed LGBTQ individuals in our military to serve openly without consequence.
Her is her biography
Working so I am not able to interact as I normally do —
Here are some groups that could use volunteers or donations.
NATIONAL BLACK WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE AGENDA
This organization, founded in 2014, specifically assists Black women, who are disproportionately impacted by poverty in the United States and face a greater gender-based wage gap than their white counterparts, in accessing abortion and reproductive care. They work in tandem with eight state-based reproductive justice organizations in Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia, and are active in lobbying, community outreach, and education for reproductive rights and women’s health. You can donate to them.
NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION
The National Abortion Federation connects abortion patients, providers, researchers, and advocates in order to directly provide safe, easily accessible, and affordable abortions to women across the nation. They also have a hotline for women who are urgently in need, require information, or are looking to connect with reproductive healthcare professionals. You can support them.
RAPE, ABUSE & INCEST NATIONAL NETWORK (RAINN)
Many survivors of rape, incest, and domestic violence find themselves in need of abortion services after the attack(s). This can be especially challenging for survivors, on both psychological and physical levels, and RAINN is devoted to providing counseling, medical services, and psychosocial support in the wake of these attacks in addition to helping women navigate their options. They have a 24/7 confidential hotline, a chat service, and you can support them financially online.
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER
The National Women’s Law Center, also known as the NWLC, works on a number of fronts to support access to abortion across America. Their efforts include co-authoring legislation regarding women’s rights, working with media outlets and the entertainment industry to prevent misinformation regarding reproductive rights, and litigation in favor of reproductive freedom. You can support them.
I already get texts so I can volunteer .
add Women on Web (https://www.womenonweb.org/…) to your list. It’s a Canadian organization that provides telehealth and abortion medication to women in the ~200 countries that restrict access
This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.